Technologies for the placement and storage of materials and tools are well known and are particularly applied in the implementation of additional storage to existing structures such as garages, sheds, off-site storage, and other storage solutions. Wall-implemented technologies relating to peg board have historically dominated the market for hand-held tools and other light weight materials and implements to be stored.
Various forms of peg boards and attachment means have been previously developed to aid in storage on structural walls. Hooks and clasps, herein described as attachment means or retainer elements, have been developed that attach to the peg board and through one or more holes of the peg board. The size, weight and strength of the attachment means, usually a light-weight steel alloy or aluminum, may be limited by the size and thickness of the peg board and the material of the peg board, usually provided in sheets of various sizes and made from particle board. A further accommodation must typically be made for spacing behind the peg board to allow for the attachment to insert into the peg board and between the peg board and the structural wall. In some instances, accommodation for the attachment is afforded in the space behind the peg board between the peg board, the wall, and framing members installed with the peg board, such as cut wood. Various forms of attachments and a typical installation of peg board is shown in the prior art of FIGS. 1A through 1K.
The accommodation is typically made by mounting the peg board upon a framing member such as a 1 inch by 4 inch piece of construction lumber that is further attached to the structural wall, as is shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, with a general view of the peg board in FIG. 1C. The framing member, regardless of the material or configuration used, creates additional complication to the storage solution, creates additional mounting requirements and holes in the structural wall, and may even block some or many of the holes of the peg board, making the storage solution less attractive functionally as well as visually.
Another primary weakness of peg board systems has been the limitation of the strength of the peg board material and its inability to hold for any preferred duration any material or item of significant weight. Many attempts have been made to either 1) strengthen the attachment point of the attachment means or retainer elements to the peg board, or 2) strengthen the size, material and configuration of the board that was traditionally presented as particle peg board, including laminating the particle board and providing the board in different types of material, such as plastic or metal. Many of these attempts required such complexity in the construction and implementation of the system that in practice the technology is not affordable or is too time consuming in the installation and use of the product.
A further weakness of the traditional peg board systems and the use of traditional attachments means or retainer elements, and potentially viewed in combination with the previously described shortcomings, are the potential instability of the attachment means or retainer elements once positioned within the peg board holes. As previously described, common attachment means such as hooks, some of which are described in FIGS. 1G through 1K, typically include portions that are designed to be inserted within common sized peg board holes to allow the hook to hang from the peg board, to provide to some extent for the thickness of the peg board, and in some traditional systems to include a second insertion peg in an attempt to increase the stability of the hook once hung from the peg board.
However, these traditional attachment means do not provide a more preferred and secured retention of the hook and any material, item or implement to be stored by the attachment means or retainer element, and especially those materials, items or implements thought to be too heavy or bulky for common peg board systems. The attachment means or retainer elements may be unstable within larger holes of the peg board, the size of the portions of the attachment means or retainer elements designed to ensure that the hook or other attachment will simply fit within the hole(s) of the peg board to provide a hung configuration and to allow ease of removal, adjustment and reconfiguration of the attachment means or retainer element on the peg board. Not only will the system suffer from the traditional weaknesses of the peg board itself, but the attachment means may even move or otherwise be unstable within the holes of the peg board. Some common failures resulting from the lack of stability between the attachment means or retainer element and the peg board include: the movement of the attachment means or retainer element, particularly when under the weight of material, item or implement to be retained; the disengagement of the attachment means from the peg board; or even the rip out of the attachment means or retainer element from the peg board, potentially resulting in damaged peg board and non-retention or storage of the material, item or implement. The peg board holes may no longer effectively engage with attachment means or retainer elements, and damage to the material, item or implement to be retained may result.
Other attempts do not address the implementation of a system that provides functionality beyond the mere attachment of light-weight materials or tools. Still other attempts may have addressed full storage capacity, but are themselves too bulky, too complex, or do not afford the flexibility of a customized and adjustable storage solution. FIGS. 1D, 1E, and 1F depict some common technologies utilized in attempts to address the stability of the attachment means or retainer element and the peg board and the continued retention of the material, item or implement to be retained. However, as previously mentioned, these traditional attempts to solve the recognized drawbacks of traditional peg board systems lack a more customizable solution for traditional and nontraditional attachment means retention elements, and may even continue to suffer from the lack of stability commonly suffered by peg board systems despite the addition of these technologies. Each may still suffer from the potential for movement, disengagement or even rip out as previously described. Moreover, each may not fully accommodate for the varied types of attachment means or retention elements that exist and continue to be developed for the peg board market.
In addition to all of the deficiencies previously described, the prior art may suffer from one or more of the following deficiencies. The prior art may require attachment systems and separate and additional mounting brackets or other mounting solutions as previously described. The prior art may not sufficiently accommodate various attachments between the attachment system and the structural wall, requiring that the attachment system be raised from the structural wall surface by a mounting solution.
Regarding many of these systems, and as previously mentioned, one major concern is the structural integrity of the hole, particularly if a fastener such as a screw or bolt or other threaded means is required. Straight wall holes of peg board typically may fail when a threaded fastener is used, creating a deformation of the wall that will result in a split out, resulting in a less stable mount of the fastener or total failure of the material.